On the heels of last week’s decision regarding Marsy’s Law, we learned today that a Dane County Circuit Court judge has ruled that the amendment to Article I, § 9m is invalid because the ballot question presenting the amendment to the voters was flawed. The court ruled the question failed to fully and fairly inform the public of the essential components of the amendment, misstated the contents and impact of the amendment, and improperly encompassed more than one subject. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, which reported the development in a blog post that included a link to the circuit court’s decision. The court sua sponte stayed its ruling pending appeal, so stay tuned.
On Point
by the Wisconsin State Public Defender
Important Posts!
- D3 affirms denial of plea withdrawal claim under Cross’ “higher, but not substantially higher” rule
- Defense Win! Defendant seized without reasonable suspicion during police encounter in parking lot
- SCOTUS will again grapple with expert testimony and Confrontation
- Defense Win! COA rejects state’s overly expansive bail jumping prosecution
- Defense Win! COA rejects “case manager exception” to hearsay rules and reverses recommitment
Ahead in SCOW
February 21
Petitions Conference here
Oral Arguments
Mar. 19
9:45 State v. B.W., 2023AP441
Mar. 20
9:45 Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2023AP215
Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2023AP533
Contact Us
On Point is sponsored by the Wisconsin State Public Defender. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
Disclaimer
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.
This site rocks the Classic Responsive Skin for Thesis.
The term “victim” is defined in the amendment principally as “A person against whom an act is committed that would constitute a crime if committed by a competent adult.” This puts the cart before the horse. It requires an adjudication, express or implied, that an act was committed, that the act committed is a crime, and that the crime was committed against the particular person asserting victimhood. It is highly prejudicial to the accused–who has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, decided by a jury–to have someone show up at every court hearing, already granted broad deference and consideration, already adjudged a “victim” at some vague, lower standard of proof. Labels matter, they carry emotional weight. This amendment gives the “victim” a right to be heard at any proceeding, without limitation, arguably granting the right to make direct unsworn emotional pleas to a jury during trial. The amendment is also offensive to the right to present a defense and the right to a public trial, by expanding a right of privacy afforded to accusers, out of all proportion to that of the general public, and in constraint of the right of free speech on the part of the defense. This great deference to “victims” is also insanely hypocritical, for it does all this but refuses to allow the “victim” to choose not to press charges.
Great advocacy by attorney Dennis Grzezinski on behalf of WJI and the other plaintiffs.